Mercury News editorial: Rogue cops don't deserve protection

Mercury News Editorial

Posted:
08/22/2013 02:24:32 PM PDT

Updated:
08/22/2013 03:23:10 PM PDT

Police officers on the street arresting bad guys provide little value if they can't later testify in court to put the crooks behind bars. Cities have to be able to replace cops whose credibility on the witness stand is questionable because of past deceit.

But a bill backed by police officers and headed for Gov. Jerry Brown's desk would make it much more difficult to replace those ineffective cops.

There's a legitimate concern behind the legislation, but this is the wrong solution. The governor should veto it and ask lawmakers to solve the real problem instead of creating a new one.

Under a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could help defense attorneys defend their clients. That includes information about past dishonesty of officers involved in the case. It's only fair.

As a result, district attorney offices across the state keep "Brady lists" of officers who have been identified as dishonest. As a practical matter, landing on those lists undermines officers' job effectiveness because their credibility will be called into question when they testify.

Advertisement

SB313, introduced by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would make it harder to remove those cops from the street. In disciplinary proceedings, a local government could not mention that the officer is on the district attorney's Brady list. Similarly, officers could not be denied promotions because their names have been placed on the lists. Cash-strapped cities and counties would not be able to take corrective action unless they independently proved in disciplinary hearings that the officers had lied or otherwise misbehaved.

At the same time, local governments could be exposed to greater liability for knowingly keeping officers of questionable credibility on the job. That's why associations representing cities, counties, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state oppose the bill. Yet the Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly approved it. Only five legislators -- including Sens. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, and Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco -- voted no, a measure of the power of public safety unions.

The legitimate issue is that district attorneys across the state use inconsistent procedures for placing an officer on the list. In some counties, officers have a right to a hearing; in others, they don't, raising questions of fairness and due process. Some good cops are being kept from testifying -- a wrong that impedes justice, even if it doesn't endanger the officers' jobs.

Making sure officers don't unfairly end up on Brady lists would be good government. Making it harder for public agencies to deal with rogue cops is not. The Legislature should be setting standards for the DAs' construction of the lists. Brown's veto of this bad bill can get them started.